Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

It's quite correct. It says that what you claimed is not true. It specifically says the intent is to match one of a variety of things, each of which are different. Yes that can include "the average un-calibrated" monitor. They don't comment on the usefulness of doing that.

You're kidding right? They gave that as a valid PURPOSE for calibration!

Quote:

As I've said, and given valid reasons for, it is not particularly a useful thing to do. It is also true that the "average un-calibrated" monitor target is actually "print stock paper illuminated by D65 light at 120 cd/m2".

No matter how you slice it, monitor calibration is based on a print, and is virtually useless for web viewing. And of course when it is used for web comparisons there is a need to know exactly what another monitor's calibration target actually was, simply because common calibration targets will likely not be all the same

So wrong. Your own references give maximizing web compatibility as a valid PURPOSE for monitor calibration, and you still argue the point! I give up, really.

Quote:

So we have now gone in a full circle and the question remains the same: what target is your monitor calibrated to? The point being that I can set mine the same and then see something that is probably very close to the same as you are able to see.

After all I've written you really need to ask? sRGB. I base my entire workflow on sRGB because it's the easiest and most straightforward colorspace to work which maximizes compatibility with other viewers monitors and printing services. I do this recognizing that by using a wider-gamut editing workflow I can probably get better colors in print. However, then there are a myriad of other issues concerning converting between colorspaces to deal with, and I'm not at a point in my photography career where I need that hassle right now. So yes, my monitor is calibrated to sRGB standards, and everything works just peachy for me, including doing my own printing. OBTW, do you know the white-point color temperature of most ink-jet prints? 6500K, just like sRGB.

So in your world, a person who uses a printing service like BayPrints has no need to calibrate their monitor, right? If not, please explain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson;

Where do you get such an idea?

Oh, I don't know, maybe here...

BayPrints agrees that the "standard" web calibration is of no value. They recommend ordering a proof to make comparisons, or at least using the same printer profile they do.

This is from http://www.bayprints.com/faq.htm:

"How accurate are the colors? Are they going to be the same
as what I see on the screen? Due to the complex variables
involved in color fidelity, no online printing firm can guarantee
"matching" color fidelity. That's one great reason for taking
advantage of our free proofs: see how the colors will look on
the finished product BEFORE agreeing to have the job printed.
We offer the industry standard in “pleasing color” and will make
any reasonable adjustments to help correct submitted files.

USERS TIPS:
All jobs are printed in CMYK-process color. If you upload in
CMYK, we ask you to use our preferred-color profile for better
color accuracy. Bayprints.com uses the US Sheet-fed Coated
color profile."

Quote:

This is what started our "discussion", your claim that calibration for anything other than print is useless. So again, in your world, if a person doesn't do their own printing, then why would they need to calibrate their monitor?

Clearly if they send print jobs to a commercial printer the need is to calibrate to the same standard as the printer. That is no different than my request to for information on how your monitor is calibrated.

Quote:

In my world they want to calibrate their monitor regardless of whether they print for two reason: (1) to maximize compatibility with as many viewer's monitors on the web as possible, and

That's a joke. See above comments from BayPrint.

Quote:

(2) to maximize color control for third party printing services.

And that uses a different calibration. (Or none at all if proofs are ordered as suggested by BapPrint.)

Quote:

Oh and before you get all excited because I said the "P" word, realize that most of the web printing services prefer sRGB because it's compatible with most users displays. So standard sRGB calibration is the correct thing for a user to do.

Virtually none of them merely say "standard sRGB calibration", simply because that is not a complete specification. They all suggest the correct profile for various different printer/paper combinations.

Incidentally, one of the menu selectable monitor calibration "standards" that I can switch to is a match to what MPix.com uses. That way I can use a web browser that does not have color management to review images that people say they want MPix to print for them. (I can switch between 5 or 6 different targets, and that way I don't have to download an image and view it in a color managed environment, such as an editor, for calibrated comparisons.)

Your own references give maximizing web compatibility as a valid PURPOSE for monitor calibration, and you still argue the point! I give up, really.

Didn't you notice how the reference to web viewing was set aside from the others, added after a dash as a totally separate comment -- because they know it is what people do but also that it is useless.

In regard to your monitor calibration...

Quote:

After all I've written you really need to ask? sRGB. I base my entire workflow on sRGB because it's the easiest and most straightforward colorspace to work which maximizes compatibility with other viewers monitors and printing services. I do this recognizing that by using a wider-gamut editing workflow I can probably get better colors in print. However, then there are a myriad of other issues concerning converting between colorspaces to deal with, and I'm not at a point in my photography career where I need that hassle right now.

I agree particularly with that last sentence.

Regardless, saying "sRGB" is specifying only a color space, not a monitor calibration target. The brightness of the screen is not specified, and while gamma is specified in a way, it is almost guaranteed to be wrong for viewing prints. And the color temperature is absolutely guaranteed to be wrong.

Quote:

So yes, my monitor is calibrated to sRGB standards, and everything works just peachy for me, including doing my own printing. OBTW, do you know the white-point color temperature of most ink-jet prints? 6500K, just like sRGB.

The brightness for CRT monitors (it isn't specified for LCD monitors) is also too high (120 cd/m2, when it should be at maybe 90 cd/m2 or even lower).

The color temperature of a print, inkjet or otherwise, depends on the light used to illuminate it. Commercial printers have long used D50 as the standard (5000K) for viewing. While D65 is more common amongst home viewers for adjusting monitors, the problem is that typical viewing conditions using incandescent light are much warmer than 6500K, and unless one uses special full spectrum lamps to view the prints, they don't match.

There may be lamps with higher color temperatures, but the hightest I happen to know of offhand is 5550K, made by Sunwave. It is also reasonable to use something like a halogen lamp, which perhaps best shows what a print will look like when viewed using typical indoor lighting. Just be aware that such viewing conditions will show a yellow tint to the print compared to your 6500K monitor calibration, which is why calibrating the monitor at 5700K, or even lower, is more valid (if prints are to be viewed for comparison using software such as web browsers that are not color managed).

Note that most monitors come default set for 9300K color temperature, not D65 or sRGB. And that sunlight at noon will be even higher than that.

Hence it is true that most home based (amateur, consumer, non-professional) prints were printed with the idea that they have a 6500K temperature, they don't when viewed in the most typical (uncontroled) circumstances.

Sorry for backing up a couple of posts, but I just realized something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson

So we have now gone in a full circle and the question remains the same: what target is your monitor calibrated to? The point being that I can set mine the same and then see something that is probably very close to the same as you are able to see.

Bingo. This proves my point. If we both calibrate our monitors for the same color space, we will both see an image approximately the same way. Since most people calibrate monitors for viewing sRGB (when they are not proofing prints with custom ICC profiles, that is) most people with calibrated monitors will see images the same way. Furthermore, by posting from a color managed system, one assures that the widest range of non-calibrated "average" monitors will also see the image properly, which is also what your two references stipulate.

Bingo. This proves my point. If we both calibrate our monitors for the same color space, we will both see an image approximately the same way. Since most people calibrate monitors for viewing sRGB (when they are not proofing prints with custom ICC profiles, that is) most people with calibrated monitors will see images the same way. Furthermore, by posting from a color managed system, one assures that the widest range of non-calibrated "average" monitors will also see the image properly, which is also what your two references stipulate.

1) Very few people viewing the web are using calibrated monitors.
2) Very few of the calibrated monitors used to view the web are calibrated to the same target.
3) Posting from a color managed system does not assure anything like others viewing the image properly.
4) My references do not stipulate any such thing.

What your comments reference is the ideal that it should be. But reality gets in the way, and it is literally a joke to think that most web viewer will ever see images correctly, or that they will ever care either!

Previously you stated "calibration of these devices are all over the map, they're still within a standard deviation of proper calibration", which is perhaps as big a blooper as any you've made in this discussion, and the fact that that is not true is exactly the reason that a calibrated monitor makes very little if any difference for posting images to the web.

The value of monitor calibration should in theory be significantly higher when viewing something like this photography specific forum. But look what the reality of it is... you, are one of the few who actually claim to calibrate a monitor, yet you can't even specify exactly what the calibration target was and are woefully lost by a discussion that includes even the bare basics of color management.

Look at some of the other bloopers you've posted in this thread:

"The result of calibrating (profiling is actually the correct term)

"One does NOT calibrate a monitor to match the output of a specific printer"

"The monitor is calibrated, and the printer is calibrated -- independently."

"it sounds like you are living in a world of color management from about 10 years ago."

"The white-point color temperature of most ink-jet prints? 6500K, just like sRGB."

"In all this discussion you have NOT ONCE even mentioned ICC profiles."

"I think we're done here, Floyd."

The best one was when in the same article you stated that you would not tell us what target your monitor calibration uses, and then said "We cannot rationally discuss whether a picture that somebody posted is too dark unless we know that our own equipment is functioning correctly."

Now, with that said, it appears to me that this exchange is indeed finished. Unless you can show something rational that doesn't amount to more attempts at distorting valid technical discussion, I won't be responding. If you research the topic and have valid questions, I'll be happy to help; but not if the insulting tone of voice continues to color your ignorance of the topic.

To calibrate or not to calibrate, was that the question?
No, what-do-you-think-about-these, that was the question.

If the question was "What do you think of the framing/composition/cropping/subject?" Or something else that was specific and of that nature... it would be off topic to discuss monitor calibration.

However, if the contrast, brightness, saturation, hue or any other characteristic of tonal/color quality is on topic, then it becomes virtually essential that monitor calibration at least be understood if not discussed.

Indeed, the one thing that almost anyone should have been able to realize due to that bit of discussion is that monitor calibration does make a difference and it is not well understood by most people.

1) Very few people viewing the web are using calibrated monitors.
2) Very few of the calibrated monitors used to view the web are calibrated to the same target.
3) Posting from a color managed system does not assure anything like others viewing the image properly.
4) My references do not stipulate any such thing.

My answers:

1) The precise number of people who calibrate their monitors doesn't matter to me. However, the people I'M most interested in are the people who do.

2) I don't know what you mean by a "target". The word "target" is an overloaded term in color management. Are you talking about the target workspace, a printed reference image, or a web-pages image with various color patterns used to do a web-based calibration? Please define what kind of target you're talking about and what you use, then maybe I can answer your question.

3) I never said that posting from a color managed system guarantees that the user will be able to see your images correctly. What I said was that it will assure the highest percentage possible viewers will see it, especially when compared to using an uncalibrated monitor to edit your pictures. I'm stupified at how you can argue with that statement. Most monitors from the factory aren't that far out.

Case in point. EVERYONE in this thread agrees that the images are dark, except for the OP of course, and NOBODY but me and "supposedly you" have calibrated monitors.

4) Your references do indeed mention what I said in #3 in plain English. You ascribe meanings to your references that aren't stated. It's almost impossible to communicate with you because of this.

Quote:

What your comments reference is the ideal that it should be. But reality gets in the way, and it is literally a joke to think that most web viewer will ever see images correctly, or that they will ever care either!

Previously you stated "calibration of these devices are all over the map, they're still within a standard deviation of proper calibration", which is perhaps as big a blooper as any you've made in this discussion, and the fact that that is not true is exactly the reason that a calibrated monitor makes very little if any difference for posting images to the web.

That's your opinion and is no better than mine. I believe if one were to look at a distribution of monitor calibrations across the internet that they would be weighted more towards being correctly calibrated than completely random. I will try to find a reference for that. Feel free to find one of your own.

Quote:

The value of monitor calibration should in theory be significantly higher when viewing something like this photography specific forum. But look what the reality of it is... you, are one of the few who actually claim to calibrate a monitor, yet you can't even specify exactly what the calibration target was and are woefully lost by a discussion that includes even the bare basics of color management.

Again, you spout words like target which has no meaning without some qualifying context. What target? Target Colorspace? That is what I took you to mean previously, and I said sRGB. Since you're getting all insulting, feel free to insult me further and DEFINE YOUR TERMS.

Quote:

Look at some of the other bloopers you've posted in this thread:

"The result of calibrating (profiling is actually the correct term)

"One does NOT calibrate a monitor to match the output of a specific printer"

"The monitor is calibrated, and the printer is calibrated -- independently."

"it sounds like you are living in a world of color management from about 10 years ago."

"The white-point color temperature of most ink-jet prints? 6500K, just like sRGB."

"In all this discussion you have NOT ONCE even mentioned ICC profiles."

"I think we're done here, Floyd."

The best one was when in the same article you stated that you would not tell us what target your monitor calibration uses, and then said "We cannot rationally discuss whether a picture that somebody posted is too dark unless we know that our own equipment is functioning correctly."

Now, with that said, it appears to me that this exchange is indeed finished. Unless you can show something rational that doesn't amount to more attempts at distorting valid technical discussion, I won't be responding. If you research the topic and have valid questions, I'll be happy to help; but not if the insulting tone of voice continues to color your ignorance of the topic.

I already told you why I don't answer your questions, the reason is that they are not asked in way to be productive, they are simply bullying tactics. I did answer your questions, and look where it got me! More bullying. That's exactly what I figured would happen. But it a weak moment I capitulated and gave you want you want. I shall not make that mistake again.

I tried to tone down the insults in my last couple of posts, but you're really on a rampage here. You may or may not know much about color management, but it's impossible to tell because your posts are nauseatingly detailed in some areas, and completely vacant in others. It's impossible to tell what you're talking about half the time.

However, if the contrast, brightness, saturation, hue or any other characteristic of tonal/color quality is on topic, then it becomes virtually essential that monitor calibration at least be understood if not discussed.

Really? According to you, monitor calibration has no purpose whatsoever on the web. So which is it?

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.